lpetrich

I wonder what Ed would consider empirical evidence -- going back in time in a time machine and watching evolution happen as he goes back farther and farther?

It doesn't if that lung was growing without its owner really using it.

Ed, what would you consider evidence? Going back in time in a time machine and watching it happen?

Thus said Mr. Smugness.

Duvenoy

Ed:
“There is no evidence of a fin turning into a forelimb and the skull changing from two parts to a single solid piece.”

(sigh) one, last time......... There is every evidence!

Perhaps the most important findings to alter our understanding of tetrapods evolution followed the discovery and analysis of Acanthostega in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A skull roof of this tetrapod was first discovered by Gunar Save-Soederberg and Erik Jarvik in 1933, but the significance of this animal was not realized until after additional material was recovered by Jenny Clack in 1987. Together with Michael Coates, Clack realized that this animal was clearly a tetrapod, but that it was a poor excuse for a land animal. Its legs were ill-suited to support its weight and the wrists were absent. Yet, it sported well developed digits (fingers and toes). Surprisingly, the forelimbs possessed eight digits rather than the anticipated five digits, while the hindlimbs possessed seven.
Additional features from the spine, ribs, pelvis and tail corroborated the notion that Acanthostega would not be able to support itself on land. Since it was essentially contemporaneous with the apparently more terrestrial Ichthyostega, Acanthostega, like modern-day dolphins and whales, may have secondarily lost the skeletal features needed for life on land. This possibility, however, is undermined by the presence of internal fish-like gills. (It also breathed with its lungs.) Acanthostega, with its four limbs, pelvic girdle and assorted other features, was clearly a tetrapod, but its lineage probably never left the water.
The unexpected characteristics of Acanthostega have led to reinterpretations of Ichthyostega by Per Ahlberg, Jennifer Clack and Michael Coates. They found an animal that was less adept to life on land than the one depicted by Erik Jarvik, but they also found one that was probably less aquatic than Acanthostega. Ichthyostega's forelimbs were more robust than those of Acanthostega and were probably able to lift the front half of the body. However, its hindlimbs were relatively small and probably functioned more like paddles than legs. Like Acanthastega, it had seven digits on its hindlimbs, but it lacked evidence of internal fish-like gills.

<a href="http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html" target="_blank">http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html</a>

For an example of fins being used as forelimbs OUT OF THE WATER, check out the mud-skippers.

d

Ed

My point was that you cannot be too dogmatic when extrapolating from living organisms to extinct forms. It was not that you can NEVER do so, because as you said that is the only way we can get some possible ideas about soft tissues and also behavior.

Quote:

OC: Looking at Ed’s claim in a bit more detail, note that the question of finding intermediates between anurans (frogs and toads) and urodeles (salamanders and newts), and "older amphibians" (what palaeontologists would call ‘early tetrapods&#8217 , is only tangentially relevant to the move from water to land (‘fish becoming reptiles&#8217 . As should be apparent, the move onto land was something that happened during the evolutionary transition from fishes to early tetrapods, ie at the origin of Ed’s "older amphibians" (which is why they are referred to as "older amphibians", not "older fishes"... simple when you think about it...). Whether there is a gap in the fossil record between these "older amphibians" and the anurans and urodeles is irrelevant to the question of whether tetrapods evolved from fishes. Just to give a few more details on these two topics: Tetrapods evolved from fishes during the Devonian period, about 365-355 million years ago. The fossil record of this transition is rather good, and new discoveries are being made all the time. Key steps in the transition are represented by: 1) Osteolepiform fishes, of which Eusthenopteron is the best known. These are one of the subsets of Ed's "rhipidistians"; they have a normal fish shape and seen to have been entirely aquatic, but have certain tetrapod features in their anatomy such as paired fin skeletons containing equivalents of the limb bones humerus/femur, radius/tibia and ulna/fibula. Eusthenopteron 2) Panderichthys. This form has all the tetrapod characteristics of osteolepiforms, plus a few more. It also has a crocodile-like head and body form with reduced fins, suggesting that it operated in very shallow water and maybe made short journeys over land. Panderichthyids and all other osteolepiform fish had a hole (choana) between the nasal passage and the mouth, which allowed air to pass from the nose into the mouth which is not present in other lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys also had external nostrils which were in the same position as those of the early tetrapods. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods, and the braincase is so similar to earliest tetrapod ones that they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys 3) A fish similar to Sauripterus (Daeschler and Shubin (1998): Nature vol 391 no 133). Inside its fins are eight ‘fingers’ attached in a similar way to the digits of the earliest amphibians. Note that some early amphibians also had eight digits. 3) Ichthyostega and Acanthostega. These are the earliest tetrapods known from complete skeletons. They have limbs (with seven or eight digits apiece, rather than five), but retain tail fins, lateral line canals (sensory organs that only work in water) and a number of other fish characteristics. Both have external nostrils and choana; Acanthostega also has internal gills.

However none of these animals show a gradual transition from fins to feet and from a two piece skull to a one piece. Not to mention all the major soft tissue differences. Are you sure lateral line canals were found in a fossil? They are ususally only present in the soft tissues.

Quote:

OC: After the Devonian, the tetrapods (Ed's "older amphibians") lost their last few fish characteristics and diversified rapidly into a number of groups. One of these was the reptiles. The origin of reptiles is fairly well understood; the earliest reptiles (such as Hylonomus) are Late Carboniferous in age (about 300my) and very similar to some of the "older amphibians" such as gephyrostegids and seymouriamorphs. The origin of lissamphibians (= anurans, urodeles and caecilians) probably occurred during the Permian, about 280 million years ago. The anurans are very similar to an "older amphibian" group called the temnospondyls, and almost certainly derives from these; there is a Triassic fossil from Madagascar, Triadobatrachus, that is neatly intermediate between temnospondyls and early anurans. The origins of the urodeles and caecilians ("worm amphibians") are less well understood. These groups are structurally very modified, and also have a poor fossil record (essentially because they are small animals), which makes them more difficult to position. However, they have a lot of characteristics in common with the anurans, and are clearly related to them, so most probably they too have a temnospondyl ancestry.

However none of this addresses the main differences between amphibians and reptiles, ie, terrestrial eggs and the circulatory system.

[b] I did read it.

lpetrich

Sure, but will Ed show similar critical thinking about whether Noah's Flood had happened?

How are those supposed to be impossible-to-evolve features?

Ed

We have learned in the computer age that computers can be designed with programs to adapt to different inputs, so it is rational to assume that if there is an intelligent designer then he probably designed organisms to adapt to different environments within limits.

Quote:

Ed: Yes, but the whole point [of the Nature article] is to show erectus intermediary between humans and apes which is the same thing [as establishing relationships between erectus and apes]. OC: Don’t be ridiculous. What would be the point of simply showing a connection between erectus and apes, when this is utterly uncontroversial except for people such as yourself. As the abstract (Nature (2001), 414(6864):628-31) says: Here we report differences in enamel growth that show the earliest fossils attributed to Homo do not resemble modern humans in their development. [...] Neither australopiths nor fossils currently attributed to early Homo shared the slow trajectory of enamel growth typical of modern humans; rather, both resembled modern and fossil African apes. We then reconstructed tooth formation times in australopiths, in the approximately 1.5-Myr-old Homo erectus skeleton from Nariokotome, Kenya, and in another Homo erectus specimen, Sangiran S7-37 from Java. These times were shorter than those in modern humans. It therefore seems likely that truly modern dental development emerged relatively late in human evolution. OC: It’s noting differences, not suggesting a connection. The connection is thoroughly established as far as palaeoanthropologists are concerned.

I was referring to YOUR point for using the article, your point was to establish a connection.

Quote:

ED: But if they occupy the same ecological niche, and they do, OC: You know this how? Simply by coexisting, they cannot be occupying exactly the same niche. That’s basic -- very basic -- ecology. Except of course if one is driving out the other over a (possibly large) number of generations.

The evidence points to them requiring the same food sources. And they can occupy the same niche if they are the same species.

Quote:

Ed: then they cannot be ancestral to humans. OC: How does that follow? You do know how speciation occurs, don’t you? And anyway, the ones coexisting wouldn’t be ancestral, by definition, any more than fox terriers and Jack Russells would be ancestral one to the other. Let me spell it out. Recent. Common. Ancestor.

Well I should have said unlikely to be ancestral to humans. So you are saying that Homo erectus is NOT a human ancestor?

Quote:

OC: It in fact implies that they [Java man] are just different looking homo sapiens like your dog skulls. OC: Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

Because it demonstrates that two animals can have extremely different skulls and yet be the same species.

[b] Exactly.

lpetrich

I can't believe that Ed considers Homo erectus and Homo sapiens to be one and the same species. There are just too much different, and not only in physical features. H. erectus had lasted for something like a million years, with little variation in the artifacts that they had produced. By comparison, even the earliest "modern" H. sapiens had shown a lot of regional variation in the artifacts that they had produced.

I suspect that the only way that Ed will become convinced that these are two different species is if the old name Pithecanthropus erectus for H. erectus becomes popular again.

Ed

Now you are contradicting yourself, you have been prodding me to consider the flood local but when I tell that some scholars believe there is evidence it was local in the bible, you brush it off with the angels on a pinhead comment.

Quote:

(On pathogenic microbes...) lp: A book that is supposedly full of fulfilled prophecies and miraculous cures might also mention such tiny troublemakers and how to fight them -- that would be an additional indication of superior knowledge. Ed: That is not its purpose. lp: That's the old claim that one never lost because one was not in the race.

Nevertheless a true claim in this case.

Quote:

Ed: Not usually, because without God science is an irrational leap of faith. And without Christianity modern science probably would have never come into existence. lp: That's absurd triumphalism and projection. The existence of a Universe-controlling superbeing states nothing about how orderly the Universe is. Also, many theologians have fought against various advances in science. Consider what Copernicus and Galileo had gone through -- they certainly weren't commissioned by the Pope to explore alternate possibilities of the motions of the planets, which is what Ed's scenario suggests. And did the Pope commission Vesalius to do dissections? And did the Church of England commission Charles Darwin to study how different species might be related? And were the various churches eager to install lightning rods?

Nevertheless, the christian worldview teaches that the universe is orderly, objectively there, and that we can learn about God by studying it. And these teachings gave the impetus to develop modern experimental science. No other worldviews held to these truths that is why no other worldview came up with science.

Quote:

lp: However, the Biblical God is described as a miracle-worker, and there is no explicit concept of regular natural laws in the Bible. Ed: Yes, but a not really very often miracle worker. 99.9% of time God works through natural processes. Natural laws are plainly implied in the books of Job and the Psalms, read them. Also in the New Testament Paul says "God is a god of order." lp: Where is that number to be found in the Bible? And the Biblical God is described as working lots and lots of miracles.

From the origin of the universe in Genesis to Revalation, as much as 15 billion years have passed. The number of miracles is actually quite small given such a time span.

Quote:

(Hellenic-pagan scientists...) Ed: Somewhat influenced yes, but modern experimental science was invented and founded by Christians. lp: Who would not have been allowed to be anything else by their governments -- 400-500 years ago was the time of the Wars of Religion, when Catholics and Protestants viciously fought each other over whose religion shall be Europe's religion. Isaac Newton, for example, was seriously interested in theological questions, but had some beliefs that the Church of England considered heretical, and kept his mouth shut about them. But Francis Bacon, for example, seemed as if he was trying to cover his rear end about religion. Again, I wonder if the examples of Copernicus and Galileo make Ed want to convert to Catholicism. Or the examples of Brahe and Kepler make him want to convert to Lutheranism. Or the examples of Bacon and Newton make him want to convert to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism.

No, most of these men were also Christians in private, if you read their private journals and writings. Their private writings would not have been seen by any government so they would not have been pretending to be something they were not.

Quote:

Ed: And also Christianity was the only major worldview that taught that an objective reality existed that could be studied and operated according to orderly natural laws so that experiments could be repeated. Thereby allowing the formation of modern science. lp: I'd be surprised if Ed has ANY knowledge of belief systems other than his, or how much of Christianity has worked out. Consider what one has to do to become a saint -- work miracles. And medieval saints were noted for working LOTS and LOTS of miracles.

See above how much time has passed.


[b] Belief in spirits occupying everything.

lpetrich

What I was comparing to angels dancing on the heads of pins was the style of argument -- arguing that the Bible meant by "earth" only the part of our planet inhabited by our species. It is as if Ed only accepts that something is seriously real only if he can find it in the Bible.

Very ingenious.

This is a very after-the-fact viewpoint, one that reminds me of Paul's comment about being all things to all people. Because for most of the history of Christianity, it's the miracle-working that had been emphasized.

Also, Ed's comments remind me of certain Muslim apologists who brag about Mohammed had supposedly worked no miracles.

As to the development of science, it took up where ancient Greece had left off, and most of the ancient Greek scientists had never heard of Jesus Christ!

Ed had made the comment that no other worldviews feature an objectively real and orderly universe. That comment suggests rather extreme ignorance of other worldviews on the part of Ed.

And how had these gentlemen agreed with Eddianity, as it might be called? Sir Francis Bacon's writings have a cover-one's-rear-end quality, Sir Isaac Newton believed in something that the Church of England considered gross heresy, Galileo claimed that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go, etc.

That's the opposite of a godless, materialistic worldview, isn't it?

Ed

True but being indirectly responsible for something is very different from directly responsible for something, especially if it is allowed in order for a greater good to occur. A better analogy would be a rapist with an activated nuclear weapon strapped to him in a large city. He starts raping a woman but if you try to stop him millions could die, so you have to allow him to do it until a better way of getting rid of him can be discovered.

Quote:

(OC: predatory animals' attacks on other animals...) Ed: I wouldn't say he takes delight in it, but it is to demonstrate that he is not a manmade tamed god. And show his awesomeness. lp: Very ingenious. One is entitled to act wicked, because one shows how awesome one is.

How is animals behaving naturally, wicked?

Quote:

OC: crossover diseases like SIV -> HIV Ed: That is because our morphologies are similar to apes and other animals due to being the result one designer. lp: Carefully created with the appearance of the appropriate amounts of genetic drift, of course. Philip Gosse rides again. Would an omnipotent being who considers humanity something special really want to make apes look and act almost human and have almost-human genes?

Our resemblance to animals is to keep us humble and help us to realize that even though we are created in God's image we are still creatures and not the Creator. If we were totally different from other creatures, we may think of ourselves as gods.

Quote:

OC on parasites: 1. These things are wonderfully adapted to their lifestyles. 2. According to creation, wonderful adaptations are the result of divine design. (including parasites' adaptation) 3. Instead, you say that all the amazing and intricate adaptations of parasites are due to evolution. (as much as 80 million years of it!) 4. Why, then, do we need a creator to explain any other adaptation? If evolution can explain the coat protein of Plasmodium or how the genome of Rickettsia makes it able to live in human cells, it can explain the rest too. Ed: Nos. 1-3 are true. As far as 4 goes, evolution cannot explain the existence of Plasmodium and Rickettsia. lp: Ed does not explain why that is the case. Pathogens and parasites have numerous adaptations that Ed has conceded are the result of evolution. These include: Cold viruses cause their hosts to cough, thus spreading themselves. Some bacteria that live in the intestines' contents cause their hosts to have diarrhea, thus spreading those bacteria. The complicated lifestyles of many parasites, often involving 2 or 3 hosts. A common adaptation by pathogenic microbes is to produce a surface layer that looks like the hosts' own cells; this keeps the immune system from recognizing them as invaders. Again, Ed recognizes that much evolution occurs, even if he does not consider it real evolution.

Because there is no evidence that these creatures developed in a gradualistic manner from simpler organisms.

Quote:

OC: (how long since Noah's Flood for some peacefully-coexisting symbionts to become dangerous...) Long enough for all these symbionts to become pathogenic? Ed: Not necessarily all of them that we know today. I dont know when it was created or how long between the creation and the flood. lp: Pure evasion.

Why? Given my explanations in all my threads.

Quote:

OC: Take your hog elsewhere. It won’t wash here. Else please provide evidence for this ‘Tree of Life’. Ed, go home. Your village is missing you. TTFN, Oolon Ed: No need for the typical atheist condescending attitude. The only evidence for the TOL is the documentary evidence in the scriptures. lp: As is evidence for talking snakes, which suggests that the story is some kind of fairy tale.

Not in the context of the whole bible.

[b] I am not whining, I am just trying to teach atheists not act according to their stereotypes.

lpetrich

However, an omnipotent being would have no trouble arranging for that greater good to occur without anything bad happening, otherwise that being would not be omnipotent.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

And claiming to be "in the image of God" is very much like claiming that one is a god

Also, I'd rather be descended from an ape than some dirt (see Genesis 2). At least apes look almost human.

I wonder what Ed would consider acceptable evidence -- going back in time in a time machine? Microbes and tiny worms simply do not fossilize very well.

Ed, I call it evasion because when you advocate something, and when someone asks you about critical details, you claim that you don't know. If you don't really know the critical details of some pet hypothesis of yours, you ought not to advocate it.

What "context"? Something manufactured to explain away embarrassments?